- Joined
- Jun 25, 2013
- Messages
- 7,317
- Reaction score
- 2,926
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Homeowner Who Shot Dead A Teen Girl On His Porch Faces Murder Charges This Week | ThinkProgress
Remember this story? From the article
..... latest trial to test the role of expansive self-defense laws in racially charged deaths by gunfire.
In statements to the press, he called the shooting “justified” and “reasonable,” invoking language from Michigan’s “Shoot First” laws that allow immunity for some self-defense shootings.
....in announcing she would charge Wafer with second-degree murder, Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy said her office determined that Wafer “did not act in lawful self-defense.”
Wafer’s lawyer Cheryl Carpenter argued in opening statements Wednesday morning that Wafer shot McBride out of fear. To bolster that argument with legal support, she will have two options under Michigan’s expanded self-defense laws that grew out of NRA lobbying. In addition to passing a “Stand Your Ground” law in 2006 that expands the sanctioned use of deadly force outside the home, Michigan also expanded the so-called “Castle Doctrine,” which allows deadly force to protect one’s dwelling, to include areas around the home such as a yard or porch.
For Wafer to successfully invoke the “Castle Doctrine,” he would have to show that McBride was “in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling.” Prosecutors said there no evidence of forced entry. And the autopsy report shows McBride was not shot at close range.
Wafer could also use the state’s Stand Your Ground law to show that he reasonably believed force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.
I think these laws are dangerous and empower people to act on irrational fears. Irrational fears that seem to consistently provoke them to shoot black people. IMHO, unless they consider that sector of our population dispensable these laws need to be changed in consideration of these real world outcomes.
Homeowner Who Shot Dead A Teen Girl On His Porch Faces Murder Charges This Week | ThinkProgress
Remember this story? From the article
I think these laws are dangerous and empower people to act on irrational fears. Irrational fears that seem to consistently provoke them to shoot black people. IMHO, unless they consider that sector of our population dispensable these laws need to be changed in consideration of these real world outcomes.
Homeowner Who Shot Dead A Teen Girl On His Porch Faces Murder Charges This Week | ThinkProgress
Remember this story? From the article
..... latest trial to test the role of expansive self-defense laws in racially charged deaths by gunfire.
In statements to the press, he called the shooting “justified” and “reasonable,” invoking language from Michigan’s “Shoot First” laws that allow immunity for some self-defense shootings.
....in announcing she would charge Wafer with second-degree murder, Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy said her office determined that Wafer “did not act in lawful self-defense.”
Wafer’s lawyer Cheryl Carpenter argued in opening statements Wednesday morning that Wafer shot McBride out of fear. To bolster that argument with legal support, she will have two options under Michigan’s expanded self-defense laws that grew out of NRA lobbying. In addition to passing a “Stand Your Ground” law in 2006 that expands the sanctioned use of deadly force outside the home, Michigan also expanded the so-called “Castle Doctrine,” which allows deadly force to protect one’s dwelling, to include areas around the home such as a yard or porch.
For Wafer to successfully invoke the “Castle Doctrine,” he would have to show that McBride was “in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling.” Prosecutors said there no evidence of forced entry. And the autopsy report shows McBride was not shot at close range.
Wafer could also use the state’s Stand Your Ground law to show that he reasonably believed force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.
I think these laws are dangerous and empower people to act on irrational fears. Irrational fears that seem to consistently provoke them to shoot black people. IMHO, unless they consider that sector of our population dispensable these laws need to be changed in consideration of these real world outcomes.
Combine stupid cowboy laws that allow murder based on how someone "feels" with racist paranoia and this is your result.
Gun fetishists see all their perceived fears, no matter how wrong they may be, as targets.
Shoot first and ask questions later castle laws are a recipe for murder.
I don't shoot innocent people in cold blood on my front porch out of a paranoid fear because I think the law says I can.Your'e the one with the Gun fetish, AND the race fetish.
And apparently you have some Cowboy fetish. TMI, you could have kept that to yourself.
Regardless of race, if you were to see a stranger on you property in the middle of the night I doubt many would say you would be overly paranoid by feeling threatened. Now is that person is on drunk and on drugs there is no telling how the situation went down. She could have been out of her mind at that poimt in time and the old man felt genuinely scared for his life.Combine stupid cowboy laws that allow murder based on how someone "feels" with racist paranoia and this is your result.
Gun fetishists see all their perceived fears, no matter how wrong they may be, as targets.
Shoot first and ask questions later castle laws are a recipe for murder.
Is this the one where the guy shot through the closed front door?
Maybe I misunderstand something. I recall that tragic story.
Definitive Self Defense Laws have nothing to do with the color of skin... hmmm, I guess your final statement is puzzling to me.
eace
Thom Paine
Oh, did not see that in the article. Yeah shooting someone though a door is not self defense in my opinion.Yes.
Awesome Avatar BTW. You're a handsome boy!
The actions of a handful of people with poor judgment do not justify needless constraints on the self-defense rights of hundreds of millions of citizens.
If it were so, we would have gotten rid of automobiles long ago.
... and since charges have been filed, one can hardly say the system has failed to act to seek justice in this case.
Yes.
Awesome Avatar BTW. You're a handsome boy!
Those actions, even if it's just a handful, make those constraints anything BUT needless.
That automobile analogy does not make sense.
As for the charges, great. But those "charges" do little to comfort the loved ones of people who are killed because some cowboy can hold his **** together.
I think these laws are dangerous and empower people to act on irrational fears. Irrational fears that seem to consistently provoke them to shoot black people. IMHO, unless they consider that sector of our population dispensable these laws need to be changed in consideration of these real world outcomes.
I agree with you. It's time some of these broaded castle laws were clarified and narrowed. It should be illegal to shoot someone just for being in one's front yard; or stealing one's car; we should have (and do have) the absolute right to shoot someone if we are physically threatened, but shooting a person requires answering for shooting a person.
Just because you're standing on my porch yelling at me doesn't give you the right to shoot me dead because, "I was afraid she was going to force her way into my home." Shut The Damned Door.
It is already illegal to shoot someone JUST for being in your front yard!
Ref post #4
Since there has not yet been a trial all we have to comment on are the prima facie facts in the case as they present themselves.Regardless of race, if you were to see a stranger on you property in the middle of the night I doubt many would say you would be overly paranoid by feeling threatened. Now is that person is on drunk and on drugs there is no telling how the situation went down. She could have been out of her mind at that poimt in time and the old man felt genuinely scared for his life.
Without having been there or seeing all of the evidence to condemn this man as some kimd of racist cowboy is a bit premature. If he is then I hope justice gets served but I believe in innocent until proven guilty or is that no longer acceptable.
Oh good, then this man should go to jail because that's what this girl was doing.It is already illegal to shoot someone JUST for being in your front yard!
Not if you think they're breaking into your shed it isn't. Or think they might break in your shed. Or think they're stealing a lawn ornament. Or probably a dozen other actions I could think of that supporters of broad Castle Laws could and do point out in discussions on this forum.
I love you, Goshin....!!!
Since there has not yet been a trial all we have to comment on are the prima facie facts in the case as they present themselves.
Of course the man will get his day in court and will have ample opportunity to defend his lethal reactions that night.
Already the defense has begun siting "stand your ground" and "castle" laws, indicating that it is not very likely that it can be proved that McBride posed any real threat to Wafer... only that Wafer "perceived" a threat.
These laws rely on perceptions and emotional state of the killer to get them off, ... not real threats.
When murder can be legally justified by the "feelings" of the killer, the law is stupid and dangerous to all.
The actions of a handful of people with poor judgment do not justify needless constraints on the self-defense rights of hundreds of millions of citizens.
If it were so, we would have gotten rid of automobiles long ago.
... and since charges have been filed, one can hardly say the system has failed to act to seek justice in this case.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?